Out Yourself Or Starve: Canada’s message to victims of anti-gay purges

Canada, like most pseudo-democracies after World War II, bought into the myth of the “gay communist” and went on a red baiting campaign of harassment, discrimination and rights violations of people who had never committed a crime.  Dustbin Trudeau’s mealy mouthed apology of two years ago is worthless.

Why should the Canadians hurt by the purges have to apply for compensation?  The government already knows who the victims are, they have the RCMP’s files.  The government should be approaching these people in secrecy and protecting their privacy.  Forcing people to out themselves is yet another form of discrimination and harassment, like demanding women who have never reported a rape to speak out publicly or their rapists will go free.  Even if the people hurt by the purges are 90 years old, they may STILL want to stay in the closet, and that’s their right.

This “compensation scheme” is a scam.  Excerpts from the link, below the fold:

718 victims of Canada’s gay purge have applied to be compensated in a settlement

In 1945, the defection of a Soviet intelligence officer, Igor Gouzenko, revealed that Canada’s civil service, military and science industry had been infiltrated by Soviet agents. This prompted the government to establish a Security Panel tasked with identifying people who were disloyal to the state. The panel was a small, secret committee of top civil servants and members of the RCMP.

Soon after the panel’s inception, the RCMP created a classification for government employees who demonstrated “character weaknesses,” including gambling, heavy drinking and engaging in “sexually taboo” behaviours. The latter was based on the belief that since these people didn’t adhere to sexual conventions, they were more likely to violate political norms.


During the Cold War, the Americans started targeting queer civil servants and, shortly after, the Canadian government followed suit. In 1956, the RCMP created a “character weakness” unit to probe the backgrounds of government employees and, between 1958 and 1959, its main target was homosexuals.

In 1959, the RCMP released reports outing alleged LGBTQ2 employees, as well as citizens outside of the public service. The RCMP surveilled suspected queer civil servants and spied on cruising spots to entrap alleged homosexuals. They even used a device dubbed “the fruit machine,” which monitored the dilation of suspects’ pupils when exposed to erotic images, to “scientifically” detect LGBTQ2 people (this practice was abandoned in 1967).

By 1965, about 6,000 LGBTQ2 employees — mostly gay men — were in RCMP files. By 1968, the continued surveillance brought the total number to roughly 9,000, with only about one-third being federal public servants. Around this time, fewer people were fired based on their sexuality, but LGBTQ2 employees were still denied promotions.

In 1969, the RCMP released a report saying that LGBTQ2 people should be allowed to work but “should not normally be granted clearance to higher levels, should not be recruited if there is a possibility that they may require such clearance in the course of their careers and should certainly not be posted to sensitive positions overseas.”


In June 2018, a federal judge approved a deal to compensate victims of the purge. The final settlement includes at least $50 million and up to $110 million in total compensation, with eligible individuals expected to receive between $5,000 and $175,000 depending on their specific case.

On July 13, 2019, the Canadian Press reported that 718 victims of the government’s purge had filed for settlement.

Now, what? In an interview, Doug Elliot, a lawyer who encouraged eligible people to file claims, said he was surprised, as the number of claimants was fewer than the 1,000 he had anticipated. The 718 who have filed to date include 628 people who served in the Canadian Armed Forces, 78 public servants and 12 RCMP officers.


“The main problem was that people who were aware of the settlement were having tremendous psychological difficulties filing their claims,” Elliott said. He added that people also experienced extreme paranoia about telling their stories to the government because they feared that information would be used against them.

Elliot said, “These people are very damaged by their experience, and very mistrustful. Even the very well-adjusted ones live in a state of barely contained anxiety that something terrible is about to happen to them, particularly in the employment context. A lot of them fear that they’re going to show up at work, and they’re going to be suddenly fired.”